I may be missing YOUR point. My point is that non violence is the way to go. Even Nelson Mandela had a period of violent action in his youth, which merely led to the oppressors getting even nastier. Only when he embraced non violence did he make progress.

The point is that separating the violent parts of a movement from the non-violent parts is a meaningless division. They are both part of the changes, whether South Africa, India, or the Civil Rights movement in the US.

How much progress has the (peaceful) NAACP made in the US since the Black Panthers ceased to be a factor?

How much progress is the (peaceful) women's movement making in the US re reproductive rights and body autonomy? Note how much more influential the anti movement is; the counter-movement which has shown a willingness to use violence.

There are examples of peaceful movements succeeding in the absence of any violence, but they are relatively rare. Mostly there is both.

There would also be examples of violence succeeding if it were not for the handwaving that dismisses them as not counting.

. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

There are numerous examples. Particularly of violent movements making things worse. Compare the peaceful movement in Tunisia that dumped a tyrant with the violent efforts in Syria which made matters shockingly worse.

Sure, a peaceful movement can take a long time. But it gets there. Your suggestion that the violent part of a rebellion makes a useful contribution has no evidence to support it. But there are masses of evidence showing the terrible harm that violent rebellion causes.

Lance: nothing operates in a vacuum. You are taking a touchstone concept and raising it to a mantra. Peaceful movements DON'T always get there. Focus on the hard cases, not the simple ones. Do any of us know Tunisia or Syria well enough to start making such determinations?

Given its always a mix of things, I think Oleg is correct that its the threat of violence that really makes peaceful movements successful ((EDIT to add: more often than given credit)) ...........unless you want to take your long view that introduces so many other factors as to throw causation into doubt.

I think with a bit of thought anyone can come up with historical examples that do support EVERY position anyone wants to take. To the degree that is true, staking out one position as controlling doesn't take into account what we all agree to.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Wrong.The threat of violence tends to have the opposite effect. Governments cannot afford to be cowed by such threats. So they tend to push back.

This is another of those situations where people like Oleg and Bobbo think about what seems logical, and fall flat on their faces. Logic is the best way to make errors in perfect confidence.

As in all sciences, the important thing is not logic, but what empirical data shows. The studies have been done, and the empirical data shows that violence is counter productive (mostly ) while non violence tends to be much more productive. Sure it is not black and white, and that is not a fixed 100% law of nature. Sometimes non violence does not work terribly well. But it is nearly always better than violence. Note that this is about a people overthrowing tyranny. Not about two nations going to war, which is quite different.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Wrong.The threat of violence tends to have the opposite effect.

tends: Have a tendency or disposition to do or be something; be inclinedtendency: An attitude of mind especially one that favors one alternative over others

Doesn't say it flat out: tends to actually admits to OTHER ALTERNATIVES. Once again, you argue by admitting the contra position.

..................Just look.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

There is nothing more variable than human actions. So the idea that violence leads to crappy results has to take into account how widely variable such results might be. Violence almost always results in something undesirable, even to the rebels who perpetrate the violence. But that is a general rule and things vary.

Violence almost always results in something undesirable, /// Flatly not true. You are conflating. "violence" with violent vs non-violent protests within a given society. Two different concepts. WAR is violent and without that violence, you would be part of the Third Reich.

Sloppy writing...........but I'll assume you are just sleepy or not being precise in what you do know. Words. They make a difference.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Lance: when you avoid the point such as you do now, is it on purpose? If so...why? Sense of humor?? .... etc...

Contra:

OK.....then Take all the violent revolutions that did succeed. USA, France, and Russia for three. Would you recommend peaceful resistance for all these people?

And note: the examples aren't even the issue. but I'm tired of restating what Oleg has already restated.

I give up.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

I had an idea to grab credit wen Al Kidu, ISIS, or whoever duz an attack. There iz often a delay between wen the suiside bomr blowz up and wen they announs they did it, so I'd claim it wuz for the Nooalf Revolution.

It woud haf to be secretly in cooperation with the CIA. They woud make the announsment and I woud deny any involvment.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

On your three examples of violent rebellions that succeeded, USA, France and Russia.

The USA example followed the normal pattern of failure and human suffering until it stopped being a rebellion and became a war. That happened when France entered the situation and went to war with Britain. Until then, the rebellion was failing all over the place and people were dying for nothing.

The French revolution also resulted in massive human suffering, and ultimately failed with the country being run for a long time by a dictator (Napoleon ) who caused even more suffering by taking France into war in Europe. After France was defeated, the king was brought back for a time. The ultimate change to democracy in France was not due to violent rebellion.

The Russian revolution resulted in massive human suffering, with millions of people being purged and killed.

All three examples illustrate the simple fact that violent rebellion results in making things worse. Even the USA would probably have been better off with peaceful rebellion. After all, Britain granted independance to its other English speaking colonies. And they did not go through the horrors of a violent rebellion.

Lance Kennedy wrote: All three examples illustrate the simple fact that violent rebellion results in making things worse. Even the USA would probably have been better off with peaceful rebellion.

Nobody's crystal ball is that clear. I can get as far as "maybe" and that would all depend on your role in the drama. IOW: in every historical action there are winners and losers. Landed gentry vs peasants. Blacks vs Whites. Desire to control vs don't care, and so forth. Most outcomes: calling "society" better or worse off is just an argument. In this context: the concept of society really isn't relevant.....but its how most of history is written and evaluated.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

It is true that none of us has a reliable crystal ball. That is why I said "probably". But the result of the American war was not necessarily nice. It did not result in a democracy, with only 8% of the population being given the vote. It was very nasty for those of African descent, with almost all the first USA politicians being slave owners. Slavery was ended in Britain significantly earlier than in the USA. I cannot help but think that the American war was a mistake, at least for most Americans.

And that does not even take into account all the people killed or maimed or having their livelihood destroyed in the actual fighting.

On another tack, it may be worth noting (this is my personal opinion, so feel free to argue) that violent rebellion that "succeeds" normally results in a worse society. Think of the repression of communist states after revolutions, or the dictators who take control after the fighting in Africa and the Middle East. Even in the USA, the view that things got better is mostly the result of propaganda rather than hard historical facts. I know, for example, that repression of the native peoples got worse after the influence of Britain was removed.

USA was a democracy in any fair reading of the concept WHEN the alternative was living under a hereditary King. But as usual, you go too far and say a Democracy with 8% voting is not a democracy at all and was worse than being without rights at all. Doesn't make any sense.

And then you note specific instances of bad results. Cherry picking for your point while the opposite side can cherry pick to the opposite point.

THE ONLY POINT HERE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO AVOID: when both, if not many positions, can be supported by Cherry Picking: then there is no easy one size fits all answer. Isn't that axiomatic?

You find too much comfort in taking one position among many and clinging to it. Be more encompassing and less dogmatic.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

All British colonies gave rights to their citizens. The new republic did not really improve on that. And King George III had relatively little power, with most political power in the parliament. Of course, human rights have improved dramatically since then. Today even native Americans and African Americans have rights.

On cherry picking.The main theme of this thread is non violence. That is the result of several academic studies, in which the data is carefully analysed. The conclusions are not mine. I just support them.

Whether the American war of independence was a good or bad thing is something neither of us can prove. I think that it was probably not good. It was certainly not supported by all colonists at the time, and many fled to Canada after the war was over rather than live under what they saw as a treasonous government. It is also undeniably true that many living in the USA at the time were worse off, like the African slaves and the natives. However, you can have your own opinion . I disagree, but neither of us can prove which opinion is correct.

Lance Kennedy wrote: I disagree, but neither of us can prove which opinion is correct.

ahhhhhh.....I knew Tj had injected a virus into this forum.

Opinions are only worth the facts used to form them. Those can be analyzed across many factors. To the degree such a sentiment makes any sense at all, then one can say that the OP is pure opinion as well....so....whats the engaging import of studying anything? Opinions are like cowboy boots.... etc.

The academic studies are not reviewable. I have an image of Frankensteins Monster in my head right now: "Arghh, Violence BAD!"....and hurrying offstage with my rigid legs.

I'll say it again: violence is good or bad for different groups of people and different goals being sought or avoided. simple labels and conclusions.......not very helpful. Although....I can accept the premise that "IN A VACUUM" violence should not be anyone's first choice.........but the response does not stop.......I fill the vacuum with more data.... not less.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

ANSWER: Eat some chicken soup and go to bed, repeat until you feel better.

Issue: doesn't help if you have cancer.

Same with peaceful resistance.....with the note that if peaceful resistance works, just how oppressive was the gubment to begin with? iow: was it cancer?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

I can give real world examples to support my case. This is how the academic study was done, of course. Look at all the rebellions against tyranny over, say, the past 100 years, and see how many achieved their goals, violent approach versus non violent. The difference is not small. Non violent achieved far more goals.

Simply expressing your unsupported opinion to the contrary does not impress.

I'm willing to learn. Where is the dividing line between opinion and fact? Is there a gray area inbetween that borrows from both?

You are stuck on Cherry Picking as if your cherries are the only relevant ones. Cherries are cherries.

I think, I mean its just my opinion man, that you really don't get it. Too bad we can't print the thread out, put it on the table, and read it together while sharing a pitcher. Too much does get lost in this format.....but thems the cards.

I'll say it again:

in every historical action there are winners and losers. Landed gentry vs peasants. Blacks vs Whites. Desire to control vs don't care, and so forth. Most outcomes: calling "society" better or worse off is just an argument. In this context: the concept of society really isn't relevant.....but its how most of history is written and evaluated.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

We are talking of rebellions against tyranny. It is not too difficult to get an idea of how good or bad such a rebellion is. For example, how many people died ?

Opinions do not take into account such evidence. For example, I recently got into a discussion with a guy on the Iraq War. His opinion is that Saddam Hussein was such an evil dude that anything was justified to get him to the gallows. My view was that 400,000 unnecessary deaths is too high a price to pay. Get the idea ?

Lance Kennedy wrote:We are talking of rebellions against tyranny. It is not too difficult to get an idea of how good or bad such a rebellion is. For example, how many people died ?

Good or bad is objective then? Seems to me how many people died doesn't not address good or bad, rather, just the number of people who died. Two different things.

Lance Kennedy wrote: Opinions do not take into account such evidence.

I'm cornfused. Seems to me your example that follows is nothing but opinion. Based on number of people who died. Same metric you use for Nuclear Safety issues again: as if your chosen Cherry is the only relevant one.

Lance Kennedy wrote: His opinion is that Saddam Hussein was such an evil dude that anything was justified to get him to the gallows. My view was that 400,000 unnecessary deaths is too high a price to pay. Get the idea ?

Yes...that is an excellent Cherry. I like it too, but its just my opinion, man. Still.....many of the people "in power" in Iraq benefited from the disruption....and who knows what would have happened had Saddam been allowed to stay/stage in Kuwait. I suspect your crystal ball is more opaque than you recognize.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

I just had a lucid moment and recognized I conflated the First Iraq War with the Civil Revolution that followed. From memory........the hit on Saddam was that he had killed 3-400K's of his own people before Desert Storm and that doesn't include the numbers killed in the long term stalemate with Iran. The Iraqis that were killed after the removal of Saddam were not from a protest movement but from a civil war.

Religion, tribalism, Ruling Class....etc...lots of issues.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?